I have just reviewed your letter to Mr. McDonald of the UK Aspartame Awareness Campaign. First, I would like to see your background. I can't even imagine someone sending out such information on such a well established poison. To disregard established evidence shows industry influence because no one except the manufacturers of such poisons have anything to gain.

First you say, "It was considered in the Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Food in
2002". You cannot even consider that review since OLAF established that the decision was made by one individual who works at the UK Food Safety Agency and not by the entire Scientific Committee on Food. http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/scf2002-postscript.htm

Secondly, the entire review was of no validity. I know because I addressed the EU in Brussels and brought to them all the damning information that they did not consider. They were given congressional records so they could see how aspartame was approved through political chicanery of Don Rumsfeld and not science. They did not even include any reports by Dr. H. J. Roberts, world expert who testified before Congress, took care of aspartame victims in the trenches of medical practice, and wrote the medical text, Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic, http://www.sunsentpress.com I brought this medical text with me, and I know they had no intention of giving a fair review since neither Miguel-Angel.Granero-Rosell or Peter.wagstaffe was interested enough to even open the cover. I was wired so there is tape of the two hour meeting. Secondly, I brought reports from the Aspartame Toxicity Center which showed how industry does studies abusing science. They were disregarded and those flawed studies used. Dr. Monte's scientific peer reviewed journal article on methanol was not used in the review even though I brought them a copy. Here is a rebuttal of the entire review: http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/scf2002.html

So I ask you why did you even include this review which only proves one thing, the review was dishonest.

What kind of statement is this: "papers by Dr. Monte relating to aspartame were reviewed, although the overall conclusion was that the opinions presented by Dr. Monte were unsubstantiated and of insufficient scientific robustness." This is the kind of statement that could only be made by someone who didn't know how to rebut the scientific evidence that he presented. Dr. Monte uses scientific references. Just which ones did you not accept and for what reason? Dr. Monte has been researching the issue for a quarter of a century. Please explain to me which of your experts have that much experience on the issue of aspartame and methanol?

The most damning of the scientific peer reviewed studies is the Trocho Study http://www.mpwhi.com/formaldehyde_from_aspartame.pdf This proved the formaldehyde converted from the free methyl alcohol embalms living tissue and damages DNA. When you damage DNA you can destroy humanity. How much more proof do you need? Secondly, industry tried to use their flack, Tephly to rebut it and finally Tephly had to admit he used the wrong test. Then the aspartame industry tried to assassinate his character. We're used to these tactics. The aspartame industry calls names and does everything it kind to stop the flow of true scientific information. The reason is they can't debate the issue because you can't debate honest science. Even a 11 year old child proved the breakdown to formaldehyde using Winston Laboratories. http://www.nationalexpositor.com/index.php?news=690&vote=5&aid=690&Vote=Vote

Industry influence has even been established when the Ramazzini Studies were reported. EFSA tried to use some lunatic excuse for the findings of aspartame being a multipotential carcinogen causing such things as lymphoma and
leukemia. Using the fact that rats had respiratory disease made a lot of scientists laugh since respiratory disease is the dying process and would have been expected. Then Dr. Koeter resigned and admitted in his words "they were pressured by industry to hijack
science". Are we to believe in this case industry just backed off. They have close alliance with government agencies throughout the world.

Talking about the EPA draft, which you did not enclose or tell us how to find, here is some information. The amount of methanol ingested by heavy consumers of aspartame products could readily exceed 250 mg. daily. This is 32 times the limit of consumption recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency. Abuse doses (100 mg aspartame/kg body weight, or more) result in significant elevations of blood methanol
concentrations in normal subjects (Stegink 1984). Moreover the level remains detectable for eight or more hours. The rate of methanol elimination in humans is five times slower than for a similar amount of ethyl alcohol (Forney 1968). Accordingly, the daily ingestion of "individually innocuous amounts of methyl alcohol" could result in "eventual poisonous effects." This information comes from Dr. H. J. Roberts books on the subject (Aspartame (NutraSweet) Is It Safe? and Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic).

Surely "your experts" understand what methanol causes like pancreatitis, catdiomyopathy, metabolic acidosis, blindness, etc. It appears you're just disregarding this poison altogether and think because the statement came from EFSA no proof has to be used.

If EFSA had been serious about a review they would have invited the experts. Mission Possible Intl is a global volunteer force who bring the world the true and honest research by the experts to rebut the propaganda released by aspartame manufacturers and those they influence and fund. Do you think your so called experts from industry could stand by to world experts on the subjects like H. J. Roberts, M.D., Russell Blaylock, M.D., the famed Dr. John Olney who tried to prevent its approval, Ralph Walton, M.D., Dr. Woodrow Monte, Dr. Morando Soffritti, and Dr. Maria Alemany. They have been battling this issue for as long as three decades. Now tell me what kind of background EFSA's experts have other than industry influence?

You say EFSA is limited to risk assessment. You are assessing a severe metabolic poison which is known the world over and denying its true toxicity.

You will have to do better than this. We have sent you so much information on methanol toxicity and you are denying it all and giving no proof to the contrary except that you are still tried to industry influence. Do you really care so little for the health of the European people. For instance, fetal tissue does not tolerate methanol in any amount, and there is no warning even for birth defects. Here is a letter Dr. Russell Blaylock wrote to a newspaper when one of the front groups was pushing aspartame even for pregnant women: http://www.wnho.net/mh_aspartame_letter.htm Do they and do you have no shame? We are talking about methanol that has been established throughout the world as a severe metabolic poison, and EFSA is into risk assessment and is trying to say its just fine to put in food. EFSA has proved only one thing, you're still pressured by industry to hijack science.